Interference No. 102,755
48) of a brake control circuit for controlling brake selection
as a function of pedal position and aircraft speed (Moseley,
NR 19, ¶ 5).
Because for the foregoing reasons Nedelk has failed
to prove that a decision was made prior to Stimson's February
16, 1988, benefit date, to reduce Nedelk's invention to
practice, Nedelk's excuses for inactivity are unpersuasive and
Nedelk cannot be credited with diligence. Accordingly,
judgment is being entered infra against Nedelk's claims on
that ground.
Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that
the evidence demonstrates such a decision had been made prior
to Stimson's benefit date, judgment would be entered against
Nedelk for failing to adequately account for the five-month
period between Stimson's benefit date and July 1988, when
Nedelk's braking concept was considered for inclusion in
ABSC's proposal to Airbus (Beck, NR 9, ¶¶ 15-16; Moseley, NR
- 24 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007